By Antoni Slodkowski

Reuters
May 10, 2016

The new ambassador of the United States to Myanmar said on Tuesday he will keep using the term Rohingya for the persecuted Muslim minority, even after the government controlled by Nobel prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi asked him to refrain from it.

Members of the 1.1 million-strong group, most of whom live in apartheid-like conditions in a remote part of northwestern Myanmar, are seen by many Myanmar Buddhists as illegal immigrants from Bangladesh. The term is a divisive issue.

Scot Marciel took over as the head of the U.S. mission at a critical time after Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy (NLD) won a landslide victory in historic elections, following decades of pro-democracy struggle.

"Our position globally and our international practice is to recognize that communities anywhere have the ability to choose what they should be called... and we respect that," said Marciel, in response to a question on whether he intended to continue using the term Rohingya.

He added that this has been Washington's policy before and that the administration intended to stick to it.

Feted by many in the West for her role as champion of Myanmar's democracy movement during long years of military rule, Suu Kyi has been criticized overseas, and by some in Myanmar, for saying little about the abuses faced by the Rohingya.

Speaking out for the group would carry a political cost at home. The group is widely disliked in Myanmar, including by some in Suu Kyi's party and its supporters. She risks losing support by taking up the cause of the beleaguered minority.

Some 125,000 Rohingya remain displaced and face severe travel restrictions in squalid camps since fighting erupted in Rakhine State between Buddhists and Muslims in 2012. Thousands have fled persecution and poverty.

The previous military-linked government of former junta general Thein Sein referred to the group as Bengalis, implying they were illegal immigrants from Bangladesh, though many have lived in Myanmar for generations.

Last week, officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which is run by Suu Kyi, told several media they had requested Marciel to refrain from using the term they dubbed "controversial". 

They said the Rohingya were not among the officially recognized ethnic minorities and in their view using the term was not supportive of Myanmar's national reconciliation process.

Zaw Htay, the spokesman of the state counsellor office, also run by Suu Kyi, has refused to comment on the issue, directing all questions to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Asked whether Suu Kyi asked him to stop using the term Rohingya, Marciel refused to comment on what he referred to as "private diplomatic conversations".

Program detail and bio-data of the speakers


Myanmar's Democratic Transition: What does it mean for the persecuted Rohingya people? 

South Asia Research Cluster, University of Oxford

8:30 am - 4:30 pm, 11th May 2016

Click this link:

The Myanmar Times
May 8, 2016

Children born in the Kaman-majority Sin Tet Maw IDP camp have little to no access to healthcare or education. Photo: Fiona MacGregor / The Myanmar Times

By Andrew Marszal

New Delhi -- The Burmese foreign ministry led by Aung San Suu Kyi has told foreign diplomats to stop using the word “Rohingya”, prompting accusations that it has abandoned the minority Muslim community.

The foreign ministry sent an advisory to embassies in Rangoon this week warning them against the term, which is used by the stateless Muslim group to self-identify, but is rejected by the country’s nationalist Buddhist wing who view the Rohingya as illegal immigrants from Bangladesh.

“We have never accepted this term,” Kyaw Zay Ya, a retired lieutenant-colonel who was elected as an MP for Ms Suu Kyi’s party last year and now serves in the foreign ministry, told the Wall Street Journal.

He added that “it is not possible to enforce” the directive, and would be up to foreign governments to decide.

The memo indicates that the position of the ministry on the term “Rohingya” is the same under the leadership of 1991 Nobel Peace Prize winner Ms Suu Kyi as it was under the previous military junta.

Burma Task Force, a coalition of 19 Muslim groups, on Thursday accused Ms Suu Kyi of having “caved to the hate message of extremist Buddhist protesters”.

Last month, Buddhist monks joined several hundred protesters outside the US embassy in Rangoon on Thursday to demand it stop using the term “Rohingya”.

Ms Suu Kyi has been widely criticised for failing to stand up for the Rohingya’s rights since coming to power, and has herself never used the term publicly. Fellow Nobel laureates Archbishop Desmond Tutu and the Dalai Lama have both signalled their concern about her silence on the fate of the Rohingya.

For the more than one million Rohingya who live in Burma, mainly along its western border with Bangladesh and India, the term is extremely politically loaded.

It represents that fact that the group are not considered Burmese citizens. Instead, they are referred to in the rest of the country as “Bengalis”, implying that they are largely illegal interlopers from neighbouring Bangladesh.

It comes as a Burmese activist was arrested for claiming on Facebook that Min Aung Hliang, the country's army chief, did not seize power because he wants to marry Ms Suu Kyi.

PROFILE

Aung San Suu Kyi

Position: Leader of the National League for Democracy, Burma’s main opposition party
Born:June 19, 1945
Education: University of Delhi and St Hugh’s College, Oxford

Who is she?

The daughter of Burma’s assassinated independence hero Ms Suu Kyi was living quietly in Oxford with her husband, a British academic, and their two sons when she returned to her homeland in 1988 to care for her sick mother.

Early political career?

She quickly emerged as the leader of a popular democracy uprising against the military junta and spent 15 years under house arrest by Burma’s general in three stints between 1989 and 2011. She was awarded the Nobel Peace prize in absentia and became the world's most famous political prisoner.

Now?

Her party has won a majority in Burma's parliament after a historic election. But she will still be barred by the constitution from becoming president because of her foreign family ties.

By Gulf News

May 8, 2016

Calls on international community to end their suffering

Sharjah: The international community must pay attention to the suffering of refugees around the world, His Highness Dr Shaikh Sultan Bin Mohammad Al Qasimi, Supreme Council Member and Ruler of Sharjah, said during his recent visit to UNHCR’s Harmony Refugee Learning Centre in the Malaysian capital Kuala Lumpur.

He visited the refugee learning centre with his wife, Shaikha Jawaher Bint Mohammad Al Qasimi, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)’s Eminent Advocate for Refugee Children.

During the visit, Dr Shaikh Sultan interacted with the refugee children and called on the world to move seriously towards providing the refugees with the means for a dignified life, including shelter, food, health and education.

He emphasised that everyone in this world, whether governments, institutions or individuals, are required to play an active role in the protection of refugee families, especially children.

Dr Shaikh Sultan and Shaikha Jawaher met Rohingya refugee families from Myanmar and listened to the details of their arduous journey to asylum. They also met a number of students who receive education at the centre.

Dr Shaikh Sultan also met Richard Towle, UNHCR Representative in Malaysia. They discussed the situation of refugees in the country and UNHCR’s efforts to support them and help them overcome the trials and challenges of life in exile.

Dr Shaikh Sultan and Shaikha Jawaher inquired about UNHCR’s needs to be able to continue providing support and assistance to refugees residing in Malaysia, specifically displaced Rohingya Muslim families from Myanmar.

Dr Shaikh Sultan commended UNHCR’s efforts to protect refugees across the world and provide them with their needs.

He stressed that helping one another is a human imperative that cannot be sidelined or abandoned.

Dr Shaikh Sultan called for raising the level of cooperation by both the public and private sectors in all countries to provide more support, rehabilitation and care for refugees living in Malaysia, especially with regard to education.

He said that the future generations will be compromised if we fail to invest in our children’s education.

Shaikha Jawaher reiterated her commitment to closely follow up the issue of Myanmar refugees, especially children, who account for 20 per cent of the total refugees in Malaysia, according to UNHCR data.

The Wall Street Journal
May 7, 2016

Boys stand among debris after fire at a camp for Rohingya destroyed many shelters. Photo: soe zeya tun/Reuters

By Mili Mitra

Brown Political Review
May 7, 2016

March 15 marked the beginning of a landmark human-trafficking trial in Thailand in which 92 defendants are charged with establishing a transnational trafficking network to smuggle refugees from Bangladesh and Myanmar into Malaysia. Authorities discovered the network last year when a mass grave containing 36 bodies was unearthed in southern Thailand. The outfit is implicated in widespread kidnappings and killings in the current trial, the results of which may shed light on the lucrative shadow-industry of refugee smuggling and slavery across Southeast Asia.

The human-trafficking networks in the region are remarkably well-organized and ruthless, and this particular cartel was especially infamous for the scale and brutality of its operations. The support of high-ranking army officials, including Lieutenant-General Manas Kongpaen, allowed its members to act with exceptional impunity. Its victims, primarily persecuted Rohingya Muslims from Myanmar, were forced on to rickety and overcrowded ships that set sail south from the Bay of Bengal on a notoriously perilous journey: In 2015 alone, an estimated 370 refugees died from starvation, disease and abuse before reaching land. Moreover, instead of being released when they reached the Thai-Malaysian border, the refugees were held captive in inhumane detainment camps in the jungles. The traffickers then demanded ransoms from the refugees’ families, threatening to kill or enslave those whose relatives were unable to pay.

Under fire from the United States and international humanitarian organizations, the Thai government has committed to expediting the trial and reaching a verdict by the end of the year. An accelerated verdict, however, is not enough to guarantee justice or tackle the underlying societal problem. The trial itself has been plagued by questions regarding its legitimacy and comprehensiveness. Although 153 arrest warrants were released, the government is only pressing charges against 92 defendants, sparking concerns that many traffickers have managed to evade punishment. International organizations have also cast doubts over the safety of over 300 Rohingya refugees serving as witnesses in the case; many of these witnesses were placed in government shelters for the duration of the trial, but some have already disappeared. Moreover, the trial should not be heralded as a one-stop solution to the greater issue of human trafficking in the region — despite the size and brutality of this operation, it was just one of many human-trafficking rings operating in the area.

The traffickers have exploited the distinctively dire situation of Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar. The ethnic group has long been persecuted for speaking a little-known Bengali dialect and practicing Islam in the Buddhist-majority country. The Rohingya originally arrived in Myanmar from the neighboring country of Bangladesh, but have lived in Myanmar for generations. There are approximately one million Rohingya living in the country, making up 2 percent of the nation’s population, and yet the vast majority of these people have been forced to live in ghetto-like conditions in the poverty-stricken, northwestern state of Rakhine. With little hope for employment or upward mobility, many have been repressed and imprisoned in internment camps for over thirty years. Based on these apartheid-like conditions, human rights organizations like Amnesty International consider the Rohingya the “most persecuted refugees in the world.”

Yet the Rohingya are not just fleeing persecution; they also seek to escape the obliteration of their identity. Under Myanmar’s 1982 Citizenship Law, Rohingya are not granted citizenship. They are instead classified as Bengali immigrants, allowing for the possibility of deportation. To be considered citizens, these “immigrants” are asked to prove that they have lived in Myanmar for 60 years, which is often impossible given that the Rohingya initially crossed the border into Myanmar without paperwork and were subsequently denied these documents. Furthermore, the Myanmar government has created a hierarchy of citizenship that makes the Rohingya that have been able to obtain non-immigrant citizen status “associate” (or second-class) citizens without voting rights. Therefore, deprived of nationality and unable to cross borders legally to escape persecution, the Rohingya are forced to rely on traffickers.

The issue has come under the spotlight since anti-Rohingya violence spiked in 2012. After the alleged rape of a Buddhist woman by a Rohingya in Rakhine, the state’s dominant Buddhist population retaliated by massacring approximately 200 Rohingya Muslims. The violence then escalated in 2013, leading to a deadly humanitarian crisis. In fact, state forces sent to defuse tensions have been implicated in crimes against the Rohingya, to the extent that Human Rights Watch has accused the government of committing ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. This crisis has pushed many Rohingya to flee to the ostensible safety of Malaysia via Thailand, leaving themselves at the mercy of traffickers. The Myanmar government has not undertaken any effort to eliminate trafficking, tacitly perpetuating the exodus of Rohingya Muslims from the nation with their discriminatory policies and lenient treatment of traffickers.

However, the persecution of the Rohingya in Myanmar is only the beginning of the problem since, as the recent trial against the Thai trafficking ring has shown, the Rohingya people are further victimized by the barbaric conditions in ships and border camps. Many survivors of these horrific journeys have spoken out against the merciless behavior of the traffickers: The smugglers are reported to use torture and abuse to subdue the captive refugees while refugees are malnourished and prone to disease from the lack of hygiene in camps.

It is common for the traffickers to extort money from the asylum seekers at camps and on ships as well. They often demand exorbitant fees of around $1,200 for transportation to Malaysia alone, and then extract even more by threatening the refugees with abuse or death. Safe arrival in Malaysia is also not guaranteed: Previously, traffickers have left refugees stranded off the coasts of Indonesia or Malaysia and last May, thousands of refugees were abandoned on the high seas in flimsy wooden boats with limited food and water — the death toll from the incident remains unknown.

And refugees’ troubles don’t end even if they reach their destination safely: although the refugees see Malaysia as a safe haven with opportunities for prosperity and equality, the reality of their reception often fails to meet the expectation. Over 75,000 Rohingya refugees currently live in Malaysia, but they have been relegated to a marginalized existence on the fringes of Malaysian society. As refugees, they are given little recognition or government support: They are unable to register for government schooling or obtain legal jobs, forcing them into subsistence living once again. In particular, the restrictions on education are an egregious violation of the Convention on the Rights of a Child, which protects children against discrimination regardless of immigration status. There are also processing lags at the UN office in Kuala Lumpur, delaying the distribution of refugee accreditation and identification cards needed for job applications, which further sidelines Rohingya refugees from legitimate recognition in Malaysia.

Crucially, in the last year, Malaysia’s response to Rohingya refugees has become even more alarming. The government has taken an exclusionary approach, publicly announcing that the refugees should be “turned back” and returned to their country. The country’s deputy prime minister even claimed that Malaysia has no responsibility to rescue asylum seekers stranded off its coast unless their boat was capsizing. While Malaysia is not a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention and is therefore not obligated to accept all asylum seekers, its recent turnaround violates the principle of non-refoulement, or not returning refugees to the country of their persecution, which can be argued to be customary international law. Since last May, several Malaysian politicians have made incendiary statements against signing the Refugee Convention to prevent a greater influx of Rohingya; one minister even questioned the refugees’ reasons for fleeing to Malaysia and classified them as “threats” to local businesses. If these trends continue in one of the largest safe havens for the Rohingya in the region, their very existence is likely to come under exceedingly greater risk.

Thus far, the global response has been limited and misguided. While the plight of the Rohingya has come into the media spotlight recently, there has been little coordinated effort to mitigate the crisis. The focus of the international humanitarian community has revolved around assigning blame and censuring the oppressive Myanmar government. Many activists and politicians have called for Myanmar to institute full and equal citizenship for the Rohingya. While this may certainly be the ideal solution, the rhetoric has distracted from the ongoing and immediate consequences of widespread trafficking and exploitation in the region. The reality of this problem extends further than within the borders of Myanmar, which means that other Southeast Asian states must cooperate to find a solution for what is rapidly becoming a regional crisis.

The current trial in Thailand implies that there is some hope for Rohingya who have managed to survive persecution in Myanmar or refugees who have survived their hazardous journey to Malaysia. The Thai government is cracking down on trafficking rings that operate on its borders after a US government report named Thailand one of the worst countries in the world for human trafficking. The UN and EU have also reported that the flow of Rohingya refugees out of Myanmar has slowed since the election of a new government, as many Rohingya are waiting to judge the policy platform of the newly-elected regime. But unless there is greater security and support for Rohingya in Myanmar and increased rehabilitation of these refugees across Southeast Asia, the Rohingya refugee crisis will continue to be one of the greatest and most overlooked humanitarian disasters of our time.

M. Mizanur Rahman 

RB Opinion
May 5, 2016

The Rohingya are the only one ethnic group in the world, whose existence is denied even when they are alive. Although Rohingya are one of the hundred and thirty six ethnic groups in Myanmar, they have been the most significant political pawn in the country. This article looks back the history of the Rohingya and argues that Myanmar as a nation is thriving upon a flawed premise and thus creating chance of risking its image which the country started regaining after its recent democratic turn at least to its international allies.

Death of more than twenty people in a boat accident in the Rakhine State and demonstration of Ma Ba Tha, the anti-Rohingya nationalist Buddhist group in front of the US embassy have brought the Rohingya crisis in light again. In response to the accident, the US embassy released a statement expressing its concern in the debacle of Rohingya. When the term ‘Rohingya’ is deeply rooted not only in Burmese but also in world history and politics, after denying their citizenship in Myanmar, now the country has been desperate to deny the term itself. A peaceful resolution of the Rohingya crisis was expected under the new NLD government but so far there prevails an identical attitude towards this ethnic group. Can the democratic idol of Myanmar embrace the truth and establish a peaceful co-existence of all the ethnic groups in Myanmar? Will she continue looking towards China as a ‘client state’ or she will look beyond it and give necessary importance to its other international allies and neighbors? Rohingya crisis impacts not only the bilateral relations of Myanmar with several countries but also the image of Myanmar as a state in the humanitarian world. 

The entire debate centered on the Rohingya issue is confined with their citizenship status. The unique nature of Myanmar as a state has added some salt to this debate. Dominance of religion in the nationalism of the majority Buddhists in the state fuels the crisis. They have a strong sense of being distinct from the mainstream or common practices of other states. For example, Senior General Than Shwe declared that the Western concept of human rights and freedom is not compatible with the culture and tradition of Myanmar and that is why his country is very different in these matters. According to him, Myanmar is Burman and consists of ‘one race, one language and one religion’ (Gravers, 2013). This belief justifies their decade long atrocities against the Rohingya who are not of the same race, language or religion.

The Rohingya constitute 1% of the total population, and 4% of the Arakan state population of Myanmar. Although they have become pawns in the game of colonial and post-colonial politics, according to Ragland (1994) they are an ethnic, linguistic, and religious minority both within Burma and within their own province. However, the word ‘Rohingya’ is an ethno-religious term which means Muslim people whose ancestral home is in Arakan, Under the 1974 Emergency Immigration Act and finally with the Citizen Act of 1982, the Rohingya are denied as the citizens of Myanmar. 

According to Professor Imtiaz Ahmed, one group of historians and scholars suggests that Rohingya are the descendants of Moorish, Arab and Persian traders, including Moghul, Turk, Pathan and Bengali soldiers and migrants, who arrived between the 9th and 15th centuries and the other, although very minority, claims that they are the descendants of the people in Chittagong. But a significant number of scholars agree and argue that the history of Rohingya ‘traces back to the early seventh century, when Arab Muslim traders settled in the area’. Arakan was an independent state where in the 15th and 16th centuries a distinct Muslim community was formed. Later on in 1784, the Burmese King Badaw Paya invaded and occupied Arakan and it became a part of Burma.

Although the seed of hatred between the Arakanese and Burmese grew during the colonial period, it was sparked during the immediate post-colonial era in Burma. In 1947, after the assassination of Aung Sun and his six cabinet ministers, U Nu became the new leader. During his government’s ten-year rule, the Rohingya were not given citizenship and so eventually some of them took up arms to establish their rights. They were pacified and managed by the government with the false promise of giving them citizenship and equal rights as with other ethnic groups. 

Some Buddhist scholars like Aye Chan promote the majority Buddhist belief that these Rohingya are illegal immigrants from Bangladesh and the term Rohingya was only introduced after 1950. While arguing in his paper titled, ‘The Development of a Muslim Enclave in Arakan (Rakhine) State of Burma (Myanmar)’, Chan contradicts himself. He notes the British census included Muslims in some account as ‘Indians’ and in others as ‘Chittagonians’. He states, ‘and history tells us that we do not have to go back very far’ and thus he tries to reject the history of Rohingya centuries ago.

Anti-Rohingya scholarship claims that since there is language affinity between the Rohingya and Chittagonians, the Rohingya are originally Bangladeshi. But interestingly, like many others, a prominent Burmese lawyer and scholar Maung Zarni rejects these view and argues that Chittagong itself was a part of the old Arakan Kingdom, which explains these people’s linguistic affinity. He also asserts that ‘many of them had resided in Myanmar for centuries with roots going back to the pre-colonial era. After a robust analysis, this scholar claims that what is happening towards the Rohingya community in Myanmar can be called ‘slow burning genocide’ and thus it is punishable under established international law. Being very straight forward, this Burmese lawyer has even changed his profile picture in social media as a protest against the demonstration of nationalist Buddhists. 

Therefore, it is clear that Myanmar has no way to deny the history and the existence of this term ‘Rohingya’ as an ethnic race in its land. But now the question is why, this hard line nationalist group has been so provocative now. After the victory of NLD, Ma Ba Tha was on back foot because of their declared support for the immediate past military government and their nation building project. Although, within this short span of time, Suu Kyi’s government has not done anything promising to solve this issue, and now planning to listen from all the ethnic groups (except Rohingya), Ma Ba Tha, is trying to reposition themselves in the center of Myanmar politics. This demonstration can also be seen as a new strategy of Ma Ba Tha to jeopardize the Suu Kyi’s relation with the US, one of her strong allies but time will say whether it will trouble the new government or only increase the plight of this down trodden ethnic group. 

M. Mizanur Rahman is a development researcher and doctoral research fellow in Australia. Email: mithunmds07@gmail.com

Myanmar Times
May 4, 2016

Speaking Notes for the meeting of Parliament of Canada the House of Commons’ Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development on “Current Human Rights Situation of Rohingya in Myanmar” at 13:00 to 14:00 EDT on May 3, 2016

Dear Mr. Chair,

First of all, I would like to thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak about Current Human Rights Situation of Rohingya in Myanmar to testify before the House of Commons’ Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

Let me introduce myself. My name is U Shwe Maung (a.k.a) Abdul Razak and I am a former Member of Parliament in Myanmar from 2010 to 2015. 

In my country, there was a historic election on November 8, 2015. National League for Democracy (NLD) Party, led by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi made a landslide victory. With effective from April 1, 2016, previous USDP government led by President U Thein Sein transferred the state power to the NLD. As NLD was unsuccessful to amend the 2008 Constitution in the previous parliamentary term, the core of state power is still in the hand of Myanmar Military. Ministries of Home Affairs, Defence, Border Affairs, Immigration and Religious Affairs are under the command of Myanmar Military Chief. Then, The Region/State, District, Township Administrators and Myanmar Police Force are under the command of Home Ministry. What I am trying to say is the core of state power is still in the hand of Military Group although NLD formed a civilian government. In this situation, NLD submitted a bill for a post of State Counsellor for its Chairperson Daw Aung San Suu Kyi to the parliament as she is barred to become President and it was approved. Now she is The State Counsellor of Myanmar. She is leading NLD-Led Government and performing duties as if President of Myanmar.

Honourable Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is trying her best to reform the country’s old system bit by bit. We appreciate her correct steps for a new era. But she is still silent about the plight of Rohingya. She took side of oppressor. She and her party have been denying existence of Rohingya people in Myanmar. In the context of Rohingya and Muslim issues, USDP Party and NLD Party have been exercising with same political pattern although they have a huge number of differences in nationwide politics since 2012 Violence against Rohingya and Kaman in Rakhine State and 2013 Violence against Burmese Muslims in Meikhtila Township. Both parties favour hate speeches of Nationalist Buddhist Group Ma-Ba-Tha directly or indirectly. In October, 2012, there was second violence against Rohingya and Kaman Muslims. I submitted an emergency proposal to Take Action for the violence against Rohingya and Kaman from Kyauk Pru Township to the Speaker of Parliament Thura U Shwe Mann through USDP Party. But the speaker asked the Chair of Rule of Law Committee Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. But she denied. Finally, NUP Party submitted the proposal. I got opportunity to discuss and I called Ministry of Home Affairs to reform Police Force of Rakhine State as policemen involved in the violence according to Rohingya and Kaman victims. When 2013 Violence broke out in Meikhtila, NLD MP for Meikhtila U Win Htein blamed Muslims instead of culprits. 

USDP Party proposed amendment of Constitution Referendum Bill and Parliamentary Electoral Bills to exclude voting rights of 1.3 Million Rohingya, even though Rohingya were allowed to vote in all previous elections. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and no single NLD MPs objected that bills. This was a conspiracy of Thura U Shwe Mann and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi to disenfranchise Rohingya from the November 2015 Election. Both parties did NOT nominate a single candidate to run for the election. Rakhine State Election Subcommissions and the Union Election Commission denied my right to run for office on November 8, 2015 Election although I was a sitting MP. I was denied the right to contest the election because Immigration Department and Election Commissions falsely claimed my parents were not citizens of Myanmar when I was born. In 2010 Election, same Immigration Department and Election Commsion approved my paper work for candidacy and I was elected from Buthidaung Constituency, Rakhine State. I would like to say this is the most laughable joke in the 21st Century. I am not only one. All Rohingya candidates were targeted for exclusion. Dozens of Burmese Muslims candidates had also been rejected by election authorities. And make no mistake: it is because of our ethnicity and religion. During a press conference just before the election, she described the persecutions on Rohingya as an exaggeration. She also publicly said “I am a politician and I am not a human rights defender” during a visit to Europe in 2013. She also told media several times that “ Rohingya issue is an Immigration issue, rule of law issue and it is responsibility of government”.

Mr. Chair, 

Now Honourable Daw Aung San Suu Kyi is Foreign Minister, President’s Office Minster and the State Counsellor. She is leading the government. Let me highlight what NLD government did so far in the first month of its term. A lot of political prisoners were released by the order of NLD President and State Counsellor. But Rohingya and Burmese Muslims political prisoners were excluded. Approximately 1000 Rohingya were imprisoned with false charges after the 2012 Violence, which caused 140,000 IDPs. Religious Affairs Minister Thura U Aung Ko accused all Muslims of Myanmar as Associate Citizens (so-called Guest Citizens) during an Interview with RFA Burmese. According to 1982 Citizenship Law, rights of Associate Citizens are not so different as Foreigners. In practice, associate citizens are viewed and treated as Foreigners by the Government agencies. Although Muslim Organizations urged NLD Government to release a statement to show policy of NLD Government towards Muslims of Myanmar, NLD and Honourable State Counsellor Daw Aung San Suu Kyi was silent.

Then, there was about 20 Kaman/Rohingya Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) who drowned and died after a boat capsized off the coast in Sittwe, Rakhine State. NLD Government did not help any victim or didn’t release any statement of condolence. But sUS Embassy Rangoon released a statement of condolence and it used the term “Rohingya”. After that the Nationalist Buddhist Ma-Ba-Tha Group providing hate speeches by insulting not only Rohingya but also US Embassy Rangoon, US Ambassador Mr. Scot Marciel and US Government. Then, Ma-Ba-Tha and Myanmar National Network organized a demonstration in front of US Embassy on April 28, 2016. During the demonstration, Ma-Ba-Tha Chief sent a felicitation which insulted Rohingya, US Embassy and US Government very badly. Myanmar Police Force issued permit to demonstrate and police are accomplice. Probably, the permit was issued by the agreement of Home Minster. But NLD was kept quiet as if nothing was happening in the country. The National Democratic Forces (NDF) party released a statement criticizing US Embassy Statement and US Ambassador for the usage of “Rohingya” but didn’t show any sympathy for the victims. NDF party is a Nationalist Party and always blames and insult Rohingya in cooperation with Rakhine extreme politicians. In the statement, NDF urged NLD Government to release a statement on the issue of usage of “Rohingya” by US Embassy. In this connection, RFA Burmese interviewed with NLD Patron U Tin Oo and he said that previous government had decided about the usage for these people, NLD government will not tell anything and there is no Rohingya. Now it is crystal clear that NLD Party and NLD-led Government is not recognizing Rohingya and willing to solve Rohingya IDPs Camps problem. There are 120,000 Rohingya IDPs due to 2012 violences. I saw with my eyes from helicopter while Rohingya houses were burnt by the Rakhine Buddhist Extremist in Sittwe on June 10, 2012. Since then, I have been advocating for the victims to resettle and punish culprits and policemen, who involved in violence. No MPs listened to me and no Ministers cared my questions and proposals. I compiled a book of facts on Rohingya existence and solution to peaceful coexistence and gave to speaker Thura U Shwe Mann, NLD Chair Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and all union MPs in 2013. But neither U Shwe Mann nor Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has not responded to me. Both of them are politically unwilling to solve Rohingya issue. They have been using “silence diplomacy”

If this is the case, plight of Rohingya will be doubled in a near future. We are not illegal immigrants. We don’t need to be naturalized. We have been demanding to restore our rights including citizenship and political rights. 

For Rohingya, conditions remained grave as of today. I visited IDPs Camps in Sittwe on August 31, 2015. The situation was so dire. Children are suffering from malnutrition. Elders are suffering from disease. Sittwe General Hospital is like a Nazi Hospital for Rohingyas. Most of in-patients were reportedly killed by Buddhist Nurses. Thus, Rohingyas are scared to go to the General Hospital. Medical Clinic in the Camps are not-equipped for all kind of treatments. Thus, most of Rohingya patients want to be hospitalized in Rangoon. For this case, officials charged huge amount of money and most of the patients are unable to pay. Finally, they remain in the camps and waiting for the death. Some tries to go Bangladesh for better medical treatment. When they returned, they are charged for illegal border cross and imprisoned for 1 to 2 years. Most of the patients are women and children. Some of my cousins are victims of this case. Rohingya are not allowed to move freely. Rohingya are facing following problems as of today.

1. Denial of Full-fledged Citizenship

2. Treatment of Rohingya as if Foreigners and Trapping them for Naturalization, which is only applicable for foreigners

3. Uncertainty of Citizenship Processing

4. Denial of Rohingya Ethnicity

5. Accusation as Illegal Immigrants

6. Lack of Freedom of Movement

7. Lack of Access to Higher Education

8. Uncertain life at IDP Camps

9. Restriction of Marriage

The worst thing is restriction of Freedom of Movement within own country. Every town in Rakhine State for Rohingya is like an open prison. Let me share one of my philosophy on Movement. I think restriction of movement is a global practice of governments to punish criminals. When a person commits a crime, he or she must be sent to the prison as a prisoner to be punished. One of the main concept of keeping prisoners in the prison is to restrict their movement. But Rohingya’s freedom of movement is restricted without committing any crime by Rohingya. So, the Rakhine State become as if a prison for Rohingya. Thus, they are taking a risky journey in search of better life in Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia and Australia. In long term, there shall be no Rohingya youths and educated in Rakhine State. In this way, Myanmar Governments are committing continued ethnic cleansing and slow-motion genocide.

Therefore, on behalf of Rohingya in Myanmar, I would like to request Parliament of Canada and Government of Canada through Mr. Chair to urge/press the Myanmar State Counsellor and Myanmar Military Chief to implement followings immediately.

1. Stop all abuses against Rohingya in Rakhine State

2. Make a roadmap to engineer Rohingya Crisis 

3. Allow Freedom of Movement

4. Allow Access to Higher Education and build enough Primary Schools

5. Resettle IDPs to their original house land

6. Dismantle Partition Fence between Rakhine and Rohingya Community

7. Recognize Rohingya ethnicity 

8. Grant/Restore full-fledged citizenship and political rights to Rohingya

9. Include/invite Rohingya representatives in forthcoming 21st Century Pinlon Conference of National Reconciliation

Mr. Chair, Let me stop my presentation and thank you so much for your time.

By Nurdin Hasan
BenarNews
May 3, 2016

Banda Aceh -- Sanuar Begum was among more than 1,000 Rohingya Muslims from Myanmar who landed in the Indonesian province of Aceh last May, when local fishermen rescued boatloads of desperate and hungry passengers off smugglers’ vessels abandoned at sea.

A year later, only about 250 Rohingyas remain at four refugee camps scattered across the province. But although many of her fellow residents at the Bayeun camp in East Aceh Regency complain about being idle and only being able to “eat, sleep, and pray,” because their refugee status prevents them from applying for local jobs, Sanuar and some others say they are relatively content in their present situation.

“My husband says it is much better here because Acehnese are good people. They welcome us very well,” Sanuar, 20, told BenarNews.

Although she had the opportunity to try to leave Aceh and travel with two older sisters to Malaysia – a prime destination in Southeast Asia for Rohingyas – Sanuar said she turned down the offer because she was pregnant at the time. She has since given birth to a baby boy, Muhammad Nasrullah.

Sanuar and the others were part of a mass exodus by sea that saw more than 3,000 undocumented Rohingyas from Myanmar and migrants from Bangladesh come ashore during an irregular migration crisis that hit Southeast Asia in May 2015, and was precipitated by a Thai crackdown on human trafficking and a Thai maritime blockade on smugglers’ boats.

The residents at Bayeun were so-called “Green Boat” passengers rescued by Acehnese fishermen in the Strait of Malacca on May 20, 2015, after the governments of Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia refused to allow their vessel to land.

As many as 434 passengers were rescued in that incident, including dozens of Bangladeshi migrants. Now some100 Rohingya refugees are left at the camp in Bayeun. Since May 2015, more than 800 Bangladeshis and Rohingyas have been repatriated in three batches, according to local officials.

The camp is housed in an abandoned paper mill. The refugees live there and are supported by the International Organization for Migration (IOM) through aid from Japan, the United States and European Union.

Many of the Rohingyas are children who have learned to speak Indonesian fluently. Some of the grown-up residents have married other inmates and dozens of babies have been born at the camps across Aceh.

“I wish to stay in Aceh forever. But if I was not allowed, I would move to Australia or the United States, according to the IOM. So my wife, five of our children and I can live in peace,” Jamal, a 37-year-old Rohinyga resident of the camp, told BenarNews.

Busy but jobless

But others say they are tired of remaining idle and want jobs so they can earn some money for their families back in Myanmar.

When asked what they had been doing for almost a year in Aceh, some replied in unison, “Here we only sleep, eat, sleep again and pray.”

Many of the other Rohingyas had left the camp in search of jobs in Malaysia, where the average wage for Rohingyas is 50 ringgit (U.S. $12.70) per month, Jamal said.

Like countless Rohingyas, Jamal escaped from Myanmar where members of the Muslim minority flee religious persecution and are treated as second-class citizens.

“I was a cook in a hotel. When the riots occurred, I was beaten up. They fired me after that and I lost my job,” he told Benar, referring to riots in his home state of Rakhine in 2012.

Jamal stands out from his fellow inmates at the camp. He keeps up his dignity by wearing a suit every day, along with a pair of donated shoes.

“I have to save my money. I bought their belongings provided by IOM and I sold them to a nearby market. I have five kids and a wife to feed,” he said.

To kill their boredom while being jobless, other residents spend their time at the camp planting vegetables and raising chickens.

Others take English and Arabic classes, as well as learn other skills.

“We bought the vegetables planted in their garden, and feed them from their own garden. So they can earn a small amount of money. If they can harvest abundantly, we help them sell it in the market,” said Usman A. Rahman, a local government official who is in charge of the camp in Bayeun.

The local government has been working together with IOM and the U.N. refugee agency to train the camp’s residents in various skills, he said. For example, the women have been taking sewing classes.

“We hope that when someday they move to other countries, they have already mastered some skills to easily get jobs,” Usman told BenarNews, noting that the Indonesian government’s policy did not allow refugees to obtain jobs in the country.

‘All I can do now is pray’

Some of the Rohingyas were arrested in North Sumatra after escaping from the refugee camps and while trying to leave for Malaysia.

They were eventually returned to the camps in Aceh.

These include Asia Hatu, 23, and her son Muhammad Harun, 6.

“I wanted to leave because my husband is in Malaysia. But now I give up. I don’t want to run away anymore,” she told BenarNews. “All I can do now is pray. I just hope that one day there is a miracle that will reunite me with my husband.”

By Reuters
May 3, 2016

A fire broke out on Tuesday in a camp for internally displaced Muslims in Myanmar's Rakhine State, destroying shelters where about 2,000 people had lived and injuring about 14 of them, the United Nations said.

Camps in the area largely house members of the marginalized Rohingya Muslim minority, who were displaced by fighting between Buddhists and Muslims in 2012. 

The fire at the Baw Du Pha 2 camp near the state capital of Sittwe started in the morning. Authorities were investigating the cause but initial reports indicated it was an accident from a cooking fire, the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs said in a statement.

"Based on the current information available, at least 14 people were injured by the fire. There are unconfirmed reports of fatalities but this has not been verified," it said.

The fire destroyed about 44 "long houses" and damaged up to nine, affecting 440 households, or about 2,000 people, it said.

Authorities in the area were not immediately available for comment.

Myanmar's Rohingya population is stateless and thousands of them have fled persecution and poverty, often by boat to other parts of Southeast Asia.

Some 125,000 Rohingya remain displaced and face severe travel restrictions while living in camps.

(Reporting by Timothy Mclaughlin; Editing by Robert Birsel)

Aman Ullah

RB Opinion
May 3, 2016

"Everyone has the right to a nationality," and "no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality." Universal Declaration of Human Rights,

In January 1947, Aung San led a small delegation to Landon to discuss Burma’s political future. The outcome of this visit was ‘Aung San-Atlee Agreement’, which was signed on 27th January 1947. According to that agreement, which said, ‘in order to decide on the future of Burma a Constituent Assembly shall be elected within four months instead of Legislature under the Act of 1935. For this purpose the electoral machinery of 1935 Act will be used. Election will take place in April 1947 for the general non-communal, the Karen and the Anglo-Burman constituencies as constituted under the Act of 1935, and each constituency two member shall be returned. Any Burma nationals defined in the ‘Annex A’ of the Agreement registered in a general constituency other than one of those mentioned above shall be placed on the register of a general non-communal constituency.’

According to the ‘Annex A’ of that Agreement, it was mentioned that, ‘A Burma National is defined for the purpose of eligibility to vote and to stand as a candidate at the forth coming election as British subject or the subject of an Indian State who was born in Burma and reside there for a total period not less than eight years in the ten years immediately preceding either 1st January, 1942 or 1st January 1947’.

Thus, it defined that, ‘who was born in Burma and reside there for a total period not less than eight years in the ten years immediately preceding either 1st January, 1942 or 1st January 1947’ is a national of Burma and he can be eligible to vote and to stand for the vote in the upcoming constituent election.

According to that Agreement, the Election was held in April 1947. But when the Aung San - Atlee Agreement was out, the government misunderstood the position of Muslims of Northern Arakan and it was notified that unless they declared themselves as Burma nationals, they would not be eligible to vote or to stand for election to the constituent Assembly.

The Muslims of that constituencies made strong protest against this decision on the ground of their being one of the indigenous races of Burma. The government withheld the first decision and allowed the Muslims to vote or stand for elections held in April 1947. Mr. Sultan Ahmed and Mr. Abdul Gaffar returned on the votes of this Muslims as members of the constituent Assembly. They continued in their office, representing the Akyab district North constituency till Burmese independence and took the oath of allegiance to the Union of Burma on the 4th January 1948 as members of the new parliament of the Union of Burma.

It is worth mentioning to that, the Muslims of Akyab district North constituency, on the ground of their being one of the indigenous communities of Burma, had also enjoyed the right to vote and the right to be elected at the election of 1936 as non-communal rural constituency. Mr. Ghani Markin returned on the votes of those Muslims as a Member of Legislative Assembly.

‘This decision and action of the government conclusively proved that these Muslims as a whole or in-groups are accepted as one of the indigenous races of Burma. And in this connection, it may be pointed out that the Akyab district North constituency is non-communal rural constituency and these Muslims of Arakan belong to this constituency’ remarked Mr. Sultan Ahmed. 

The constituent Assembly election produced an overwhelming majority for the AFPFL. In June, it met and began writing the new constitution. On July 19, while Assembly was in recess, Aung San and six members of the Executive Council were murdered. The Governor immediately called upon Thakin Nu to succeed the fallen hero, reorganize the government and complete the writing of a new basic law. 

After assassination of Burmese Leader Aung San in 1947, U Nu led AFPFL and signed independent agreement with British Primer Clement Atlee on 17th October, 1947, which was known as Nu-Atlee Agreement.

The Nu-Atlee Agreement was very important as to the determination of the nationality status of the peoples and races in Burma. Article 3 of the Agreement states: 

“Any person who at the date of the coming into force of the present Treaty is, by virtue of the Constitution of the Union of Burma, a citizen thereof and who is, or by virtue of a subsequent election is deemed to be, also a British subject, may make a declaration of alienage in the manner prescribed by the law of the Union, and thereupon shall cease to be a citizen of the Union”.

According to the Clause 2 subsection (1) of the Burma Independence Act, 1947, “Subject to the provisions of this section, the persons specified in the First Schedule to this Act, being British subjects immediately before the appointed day, shall on that day cease to be British subjects:” Under the clause 1 subsection (2) of that Act, "the appointed day" means the fourth day of January, nineteen hundred and forty-eight. 

As par the Clause 1 subsection (a) of schedules First Schedule, ‘persons who were born in Burma or whose father or paternal grandfather was born in Burma will lose their British Nationality after Burma has become independent.’ That’s means that, then they will no more to be subjects of Her Majesty Queen Victoria and will become independent citizens of independent Burma. 

The Constitution for this sovereign Independent Republic was completed on 24 September 1947 by the constituent Assembly, which was drafted around the same time as the Universal Declaration for Human Rights. Following approval of the Constitution by the British parliament and signing of defense agreement, Burma became free on 4 January 1948. The people of Burma ceased the subjects of British and became independent citizens of independent country.

The 1947 Constitution provided safeguards for fundamental rights. Under this Constitution the people of Burma irrespective of “birth, religion, sex, or race” equally enjoyed all the citizenship rights including the right to express, right to assemble, right to association and unions, settle in any part of the Union, to acquire property and to follow any occupation, trade, business or profession.

The Section 10 of the 1947 Constitution of the Union of Burma also states: “There shall be but, only one citizenship throughout the Union; that is to say, there shall be no citizenship of the unit as distinct from the citizenship of the Union.”

Under Section 11 of the Constitution of the Union of Burma (1947), as shown below, 

(i) every person, both of whose parents belong or belonged to any of the indigenous races of Burma;

(ii) every person born in any of the territories included within the Union, at least one of whose grand-parents belong or belonged to any of the indigenous races of Burma;

(iii) every person born in any of territories included within the Union, of parents both of whom are, or if they had been alive at the commencement of this Constitution would have been, citizens of the Union;

(iv) every person who was born in any of the territories which at the time of his birth was included within His Britannic Majesty’s dominions and who has resided in any of the territories included within the Union for a period of not less than eight years in the ten years immediately preceding the date of the commencement of this Constitution or immediately preceding the 1st January 1942 and who intends to reside permanently there in and who signifies his election of citizenship of the Union in the manner and within the time prescribed by law, shall be a citizen of the Union.

These are the fundamental rights of a citizen according to the Constitution of Union of Burma, 1947.

Normally, there are two ways of Citizenships — the right of soil (jus soli) and the right of blood (jus sanguinis). . Most people are automatically citizens of the state in which they are born it is called Jus soli and If one or both of a person's parents are citizens of a given state, then the person may have the right to be a citizen of that state as well, is called jus sanguinis. Many countries fast-track naturalization based on the marriage of a person to a citizen, this type of citizenship is called jure matrimonii and there are also citizenship may be acquired by adoption, legalization, naturalization (the proceeding whereby a foreigner is granted citizenship) or as a result of transfer of territory from one state to another.

Nationality (citizenship) according to the Annex-A of Aung San Atlee Agreement, Article 3 of Nu Atlee Agreement, Clause 2 of the Burma Independence Act, and Clause 1 subsection (a) of First Schedule are Jus soli while citizenship Under Section 11 of the Constitution of the Union of Burma (1947) is jus sanguinis. 

According to the Mr. Sultan Ahmed, the then a member of the Constituent Assembly, ‘When section II of the Constitution of the Union of Burma was being framed, a doubt as to whether the Muslims of North Arakan fell under the section sub-clauses (1) (II) and (III), arose and in effect an objection was put in to have the doubt cleared in respect of the term "Indigenous" as used in the constitution, but it was withdrawn on the understanding and assurance of the President of the constituent Assembly, at present His Excellency the President of the Union of Burma, who when approached for clarification with this question, said, "Muslims of Arakan certainly belong to one of the indigenous races of Burma which you represent. In fact there is no pure indigenous race in Burma, and that if you do not belong to indigenous races of Burma, we also cannot be taken an indigenous races of Burma." Being satisfied with his kind explanation, the objection put in was withdrawn.

Who are indigenous races was defined in Article 3 (1) of the Union Citizenship Act, 1948, which states: “For the purposes of section 11 of the Constitution the expression any of the indigenous races of Burma shall mean the Arakanese, Burmese, Chin, Kachin, Karen, Kayah, Mon or Shan race and such racial group as has settled in any of the territories included within the Union as their permanent home from a period anterior to 1823 A. D. (1185 B.E.)”. These two categories of people and those descended from them are automatic citizens. They did not require applying to court for naturalization. 

In Article 4 (1) of that Act also mentioned that, “Any person, who under sub-section (i), (ii) and (iii) of section 11 of the Constitution, is a citizen of the Union or who, under sub-section (iv) of section 11 of the Constitution, is entitled to elect for citizenship and who has been granted under the Union Citizenship (Election) Act, 1948 a certificate of citizenship, or who has been granted a certificate of naturalization or a certificate of citizenship or who has otherwise been granted the status of a citizen under this Act, shall continue to be a citizen of the Union, until he or she loses that status under the provisions of this Act.

According to Dr. Aye Maung, the then Chairman of the Drafting committee of the 1948 Union Citizenship Act, ‘The clause in the 1948 Union Citizenship Act “such racial group as has settled in any of the territories included within the Union as their permanent home from a period anterior to 1823 A. D. (1185 B.E.),” was especially for the Muslims of Arakan.’

The Muslims of Arakan have a more than 1300 years old tradition, culture, history and civilization of their own expressed in their shrines, cemeteries, sanctuaries, social and cultural institutions found scattered even today in every nock and corner of the land. By preserving their own heritages from the impact of Buddhist environments, they formed their own society with a consolidated population in Arakan well before the Burmese invasions of Arakan in 1784.

Jacques Leider, in his article, ‘Between Revolt and Normality: Arakan after Burmese Conquest’ mentioned that, “we admit of a total population of Arakan of circa 250,000 in the time of (the Burmese) conquest, the country steadily lost up to 50% of its population. English observers estimated the Arakanese population at about 100,000 at the time of the British conquest.”

According to the British government document on the cultures and inhabitants of Arakan by the Secret and Political Department, Fort William dated 26th April 1826, “The population of Arracan and its dependencies Ramree, Cheduba & Sandaway does not at present exceed 100,00 souls, may be classed as -- Mughs six tenths, - Mussalman three tenths, - Burmese one tenth, Total 100,000 Souls--.” As to Mr. Paton, Sub Commissioner of Arakan, who submitted this report from Akyab, “The extent of the Population has been tolerably well ascertained, proved a census taken by Mr. Robertson, and myself, and may be considered as approximating very nearly to the truth.”

That’s means that among the 100,000 souls; Mughs 60,000, Muslims 30,000 and Burmese 10,000. So in the date of conquest of Arakan by the British, there remained thirty-thousand Muslims and these thirty thousand Muslims were living there from before, now their descendants and successors have increased leaps and bounds.

No one in British Burma would dispute that there was a group of “Arakan Muslims” who could indeed trace their roots back to the 17th Century and even earlier and who were quite distinct from the Chittagonians and Bengali immigrants to Arakan. 

According to the censuses of both 1921 and 1931, it has clearly mentioned that, ‘There was a Muslim community in Arakan, particularly in Akyab District, who prefers to call themselves Arakan-Mahomadens and were quite distinct from the Chittgonians and Bengali immigrants to Arakan.’ ‘According to Baxter report of 1940, paragraph 7, “This Arakanese Muslim community settled so long in Akyab District had for all intents and purposes to be regarded as an indigenous race.”

According to the census of 1931, it was mentioned that, the population of Arakan- Muslims was only 51,615, which was 30,000 in 1826. That’s mean that during the span of 105 years there were only 21,615 Muslims increased at the annual growth of 0 .52% only. Whereas, the population of Rakhine Buddhists became 548, 566, which were 60,000 in 1826, that is about 488,566 persons increased during the same period at the annual growth rate of 2.1%. Naturally the growth rate of Muslim population is always larger than Rakhine’s, therefore the growth rate of the Muslims at that period was not less than 2%. Then the populations of Arakan Muslims should be at least 239,960 in 1931 not merely 51,615. 

Thus, these Muslims of Arakan are for all intents and purposes to be regarded as an indigenous race and are also a racial group who had settled in Arakan/Union of Burma as their permanent home from a period anterior to 1823 A. D. (1185 B.E.). 

According to Article 19 of the Indo-Burma Agreement of 1941, the British Government of Burma recognized that “Indians who are born and bred in Burma, have made their permanent home and regard the future of their families as bound up with its interests are entitled to be regarded as having established a claim, if they wish to make it, to a Burma domicile, and therefore to the benefit of the Section 144 of the Burma Act 1935″. 

Subsequently, Article 4 (2) of the Union Citizenship Act, 1948 (as amended up to 1960) states: “Any person descended from ancestors who for two generations at least have all made any of the territories included within the Union their permanent home and whose parents and himself were born in any of such territories shall be deemed to be a citizen of the Union.” 

Moreover, any person who descended from ancestors who for two generations have made Burma their permanent home, and whose parents and himself were born in Burma, is a statutory citizen (1959 BLR (SC) 187), his descendants were also statutory citizens (1960 BLR (SC) 215), he is a citizen by birth and need not to apply for his citizenship (1965(CC) 128), and he is not bound to produce the certificate under Article 6(2) (1965 BLR (CC) 51).

At the times of succeeding censuses of the India so-called Indian Muslims born in Arakan was as bellow:-

Therefore, those who were born in Arakan and their descendants were statutory citizens of the Union, as they were citizens by birth they need not to apply for their citizenships and not bound to produce the citizenship certificate under Article 6(2) of the Union Citizenship Act, 1948.

Under all those laws and Acts mentioned above, the Muslims of Arakan who prefer to identify themselves in their own language as ‘Rohingya’ are not only one of the indigenous races of Burma but also full citizens of the Burma. Their citizenship matter was settled before the independence of Burma. They are not de facto citizens; they are de jure citizens of the country.

Citizenship is a “right to have right.” According to Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, "everyone has the right to a nationality," and "no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality." As a member of the United Nations, Burma is legally obliged to take action to promote “universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.”